Barbie Is a Swimsuit Model: Fake, Enhanced, and Plastic

Two of my least favorite cultural phenomena have joined forces: Barbie and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. For its 50th anniversary edition, Sports Illustrated has chosen to feature a variety of iconic models in swimsuits ranging from Christie Brinkley to Tyra Banks. Also included in this issue of real life bathing beauties is the plastic beauty queen, Barbie. (She’s wearing a black and white stripe one-piece bathing suit.)

Although one of the models (Emily DiDonato) featured in the issue suggests that, “it works, totally” to have Barbie grace the same pages that she does, I find her inclusion in the magazine disquieting and even a little disturbing. Come to think of it, it seems strange that Sports Illustrated even has a swimsuit issue. After all, wearing a string bikini is not a sport. If you want to swim or participate in anything resembling a sport, you’re going to need more coverage or you risk getting kicked out of the community pool. I understand that most readers of Sports Illustrated are men and men like to look at beautiful women in bikinis. However, this isn’t the 1970s. I find it hard to believe that Elle Macpherson in a swimsuit is more tantalizing than the wonders of digital flesh that are just a mouse click away.

But, back to Barbie. Barbie is not a real person (duh!). If she were a real person she would actually be unattractive with freakish proportions scientists have estimated would approximate 5’7” tall, a 32 inch bust, a 16 inch waist, and 29 inch hips. Even with breast implants, liposuction, and a good corset, most women are simply not going to be able to achieve these proportions (never mind the complete hairlessness). And yet, Barbie dolls are among the first “adult” dolls that little girls play with. For many girls (and boys), they become the measuring stick with which to assess real women. Some research even suggests that girls who play with Barbie dolls report lower body esteem and a greater interest in being thin.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who objects to conceptualizing Barbie as a child’s doll as well as a sex symbol and swimsuit model. Nickolay Lamm has recently created a Barbie-like doll that looks like a real woman, a doll he’s called the Lammily. (See information about this new toy here). Now this is a doll I can comfortably buy for my 6-year-old daughter; she looks human, yet attractive and capable of doing more than modeling or cleaning up after Ken. I suspect that the Lammily won’t make it to the next edition of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. But, perhaps, that’s the way it should be?

Lest you think that I’m taking all of this too seriously, I’ll concede that I know plenty of girls that played with Barbies and still grew up to be well-adjusted women. I’m also guessing that the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue does not inflict any serious psychological damage; it’s pretty tame compared to other images of women widely available these days online. However, it is ironic, sad, and a little ridiculous that “fake” Barbie appears in a swimsuit issue next to “real women” who have been cosmetically enhanced in a variety of ways and then digitally enhanced using programs such as Photoshop. Is this really what the image of sexually appealing women has become? Fake, enhanced, and literally plastic.

I do agree with you that a doll can be considered as a real-life role model. But I don't think the problem is where its attended at, such as those on top. Is adults who should get called out for choosing a doll as this role model. And granted, I don't buy the studies about owning a toy it makes you more likely to experience low self-esteem. Is more than that.

We men don't have any toys-- actually, never mind(lol). We do have our own toys, such as Batman. And a character like Batman gets treated like a real person. But do you think there will be an outcry if Bruce Wayne was named as one of the top influential people in the world? To be honest, probably not. Heck, I'll probably cry. Lol

So yeah, you may have a point directing your criticisms, and odds are these decisions are misdirected than well-intended. But I do agree overall: toys should not be a tool to perpetrate unrealistic portrayals. The heroes, the toys we all love -- and collect -- should be long-lasting memories about our own creative imaginations and possibilities. We're all adults here. Let's not try to do more for toys than what they already do to us: provide us with entertainment. And memories.

And yet, Barbie dolls are among the first “adult” dolls that little girls play with. For many girls (and boys), they become the measuring stick with which to assess real women.

Really? The mother is usually the first human female a baby sees (aside from female health care professionals) and is the first human female a baby bonds with. Then there are aunts, cousins, grandmothers and other female toddlers - these are all *real* females. Why would a child put a plastic toy ahead of actual human females they encounter as a "measuring stick with which to assess real women"?

I think I'm one of the only women in the world who has never questioned her self worth. It seems many people want society to protect them from anything that could potentially harm their self-esteem. But I've never cared about social standards because I've always seen societies standards as being separate from mine.

The strange thing is I grew up in a negative environment. But somehow I never questioned myself. I always knew no matter what I was good enough even if nobody else thought so. Maybe because I was surrounded by such negative people I became my own best friend.

As for men wanting 'perfect women' that's just a fantasy and most men would be happy with just a normal looking woman. The same goes for women who crush on male celebrities. Most of the time it's just a harmless fantasy and we don't really hold others to those kinds of standards.